Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

[Kirkhill]

It is more than just a conversation between the PM, Butts, the Clerk and AG...let's call it what it is...an implied order...I learned the effects of these kind of orders that seem innocuous at first when I was XO Sea Training.  I remember sitting in the wardroom and just mentioning to the supply officer that the other ship that we were on had Coke Zero...but their ship did not.  I also mentioned that it was too bad they hadn't arranged to have some sent over during our upcoming RAS (in about 1 hr). So now advance 3hrs, after the RAS, and low and behold there is Coke Zero in the Wardroom...to which I was very grateful...however the Sea Training supply Officer was pissed!  He pulled me aside and told me that he had spent the last 2 weeks getting the supply department to think ahead and put through the proper request/paper work prior to transferring any material between ships, and that my demand..although not official, with my position of authority, the ship's SYO felt that he needed to break some rules and get it done no matter what, so he simply bypassed all the official lines and called directly over to the other ship's SYO to get it done.  Since that point I have been very careful with what I say around junior members so that they don't think that I want them to break the rules to make something happen just because I wish it were so.  So I can very much see how the AG may have felt pressure from this implied order from the PM and crowd.

"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

 

[Kirkhill]

It sounds like that was what was starting to happen - a caucus revolt.

One can't help think that if this was Australia, there would have been a Prime Ministerial handover or two by now.

Not just the Aussies, Infanteer.

Theresa May is being whipsawed by her parliament and her party just now. 

 

[Lumber]

Nice bit of fear mongering and anti-firearms plug there.

I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.

Next thing you know there will be soldiers. With guns. On our streets.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.

Really stupid indeed. There's been a whopping 7 assassinations in Canada in the last 150 years (of which it looks like only 3 have been politicians). More people have died from hockey. As far as a slip of the tongue goes it's quite the suggestion to accidentally make.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Really stupid indeed. There's been a whopping 7 assassinations in Canada in the last 150 years (of which it looks like only 3 have been politicians). More people have died from hockey. As far as a slip of the tongue goes it's quite the suggestion to accidentally make.

Sometime it is appropriate to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[MarkOttawa]

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Thomas-Becket/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Brad Sallows]

>"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Despite not taking an undergraduate degree in humanities, I'd guess I've read that and read about it 20 or 30 times in my lifetime, the first probably being while in high school.  Who are all these reportedly highly intelligent and highly educated people who apparently failed to understand the lesson?

 

[FJAG]

A good article from David Moscrop at McLean's:

Michael Wernick should’ve thought twice before serving up his ‘Cicero moment’
David Moscrop: The Privy Council clerk’s soliloquy—though not objectively wrong—sowed confusion and suspicion of partisanship. Isn’t that what he’s trying to stop?

by David Moscrop Feb 22, 2019

While much of the country is going about its day-to-day business, the SNC-Lavalin/Jody Wilson-Raybould affair has overtaken Ottawa and the front pages of newspapers throughout Canada. A complicated matter of ethics and law, of dates and times and personalities, of partisan games and media speculation, the knotty issue has become a matter in the public interest that must be unraveled as soon as possible. To that end, the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights is investigating the government’s consideration of a deferred prosecution agreement for the engineering firm.

On Thursday, the committee called Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick—the nation’s top bureaucrat, deputy minister to the prime minister, and secretary to the cabinet—to testify about who said what to whom about SNC-Lavalin, when they said it, and why. That makes sense. Wernick is a longtime, respected public servant whose time in government stretches back decades and includes service under Liberal and Conservative prime ministers. And as the chief of the Privy Council Office, which acts as the civil service support organization for the prime minister and cabinet, he would have been a part of discussions about what the attorney general can and cannot do in such matters as a deferred prosecution agreement and, equally, what Trudeau and his office can and cannot ask her to do. So far, nothing to see here.

In the 4th century AD, Aristotle talked about phronesis. It means wisdom, more or less. But the ancient Greek philosopher built out the concept in a particular way, casting it as what we call practical wisdom, or doing the right thing, the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons. You might say that practical wisdom is concerned with how to act in good ways. It’s a useful concept and one we’d do well to apply in our personal and professional lives as much as possible. In fact, the health of our democratic institutions and the public sphere might depend on it.

Wernick’s testimony included references to extreme partisanship, the dangers of shouting treason and incitation to violence, and the decline of democratic institutions at home and abroad. He even worried aloud that someone might be shot as aggravating political rhetoric pierces our civic discourse. He’s not wrong. Nor is he a partisan, as some are suggesting, despite unnecessary and over-the-top praise for the current government. Moreover, it seems that his point is that these concerns may be related to the SNC-Lavalin affair through the cynical and hyperbolic politicization of the matter. But here’s where things turn.

To the extent that Canadians are even aware of Wernick and the position of clerk of the Privy Council, they tend to think that the duties of that office should be carried out quietly and without great drama. Ditto for other officials and public servants. Thankfully, in Canada, the public service is professional and it is typically non-partisan. It’s also world-class. But if public servants or officials are in the news, then there’s probably something wrong. The consensus seems to be that we ought to let politicians grandstand, to let members of Parliament be the story, to let the folks we vote for act as our pace cars or guides, and—finally—to let elected representatives be held accountable. Wernick’s testimony seemed to violate that expectation at very much the wrong time, thus adding fuel to what’s already a raging national dumpster fire.

...

See rest of article here: https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/michael-wernick-shouldve-thought-twice-before-serving-up-his-cicero-moment/

And this article by Colby Cash at the National Post is even better (and less modulated):

Colby Cosh: Michael Wernick spewed drivel while taking us all for fools
He made a creepy attempt to persuade Canadians that if they doubt our institutions of government it is them, and not said government, that must be the problem

Like Michael Wernick, the clerk of the Privy Council, I am a strong believer in the traditions and the strength of our public service. I think, for example, that most of the persons who have occupied his position as the country’s senior mandarin are intelligent, sincere and thoughtful people. It is positively unprecedented for one to appear before a committee of the House of Commons spewing gallons of drivel and frightened non sequiturs, as Wernick did on Thursday, and I would encourage the Canadian public to regard it as a sad anomaly — the sort of personal spectacle from which we, in time, choose to politely avert our eyes. Truly, the ordinary state of our system of government is relative serenity, managed by rational, functioning minds.

Wernick was called upon to testify to the sequence of events leading to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s startling removal from the department of justice, and he did so, confirming that he had participated in reminding her that recent changes to the law allowed for alternatives to prosecuting the Quebec engineering giant SNC-Lavalin. He explicitly confirmed that he had approached her as a representative of the prime minister and “a lot of her colleagues” in cabinet, warning of economic chaos. He even asserted that “I am quite sure the minister felt pressured to get it right.”

He sees nothing improper in any of this, but he also, perhaps sensing possible weaknesses in this position, proposes that the former attorney general ought to have consulted the ethics commissioner if she felt there was a problem. Well, his call to Wilson-Raybould took place on Dec. 19: she was bounced 26 days later, with official Ottawa still hibernating. So this is certainly information worth having as we discuss her fate, the prime minister’s subsequent reassuring boast that her continued presence at Veterans Affairs “spoke for itself,” and her immediate resignation from cabinet.

...

See rest of article here: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-michael-wernick-spewed-drivel-while-taking-us-all-for-fools?video_autoplay=true

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

>"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Despite not taking an undergraduate degree in humanities, I'd guess I've read that and read about it 20 or 30 times in my lifetime, the first probably being while in high school.  Who are all these reportedly highly intelligent and highly educated people who apparently failed to understand the lesson?

Pale and stale.  We don't do that anymore.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Personally, when I hear the sentence "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest", I can't help but recall only a Blackadder episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InWKrIQp7qw

;D

 

[FJAG]

Another good article outlining the sequence of events from McLean's

How many times did Jody Wilson-Raybould need to say ‘No’?
Anne Kingston: Powerful men repeatedly refused to accept Wilson-Raybould’s authority. This isn’t a ‘he said, she said.’ It’s a ‘he, he, he-said.’
by Anne Kingston Feb 23, 2019

Since its outset, l’affair SNL-Lavalin has been framed as a “he said, she said.” More accurately, the messy scandal arising from allegations that the PMO pressured then-justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to give a prosecutorial break to the powerful Quebec company has been a “he, he, he-said,” while “she” consults with her lawyer about how much she can say.  We’ll learn the answer to that next week when Wilson-Raybould speaks before the House justice committee.

Even before her testimony, however, an eerily familiar tale has unfolded, the last chapter in the spell-binding spiel from Michael Wernick, clerk of the Privy Council, this week before the justice committee. And that’s the spectre of powerful men not used to hearing “No,” not willing to accept “No,” doggedly pushing for a “Yes” from the person who ostensibly determines consent, then gaslighting her when they don’t hear it.

Through it all a question emerges: How many times did Jody Wilson Raybould need to say “No” before she was heard?
...

As for “How many times did Jody Wilson Raybould need to say ‘No?’ before being heard?” It’s a trick question. The correct answer: Zero.

Full article here: https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-many-times-did-jody-wilson-raybould-need-to-say-no/

:cheers:

 

[Rifleman62]

How many employees does SNC actual have? I am sure they sub contract most everything to excavation, steel fabricators, electricial etc contractors as does ever engineering firm.

The Liberals changed the law once to benefit Liberal contributor SNC. Again?

https://canadanewsmedia.ca/2019/02/24/ottawas-review-of-integrity-regime-rules-opens-door-for-snc-lavalin-the-globe-and-mail/

Ottawa's review of Integrity Regime rules opens door for SNC-Lavalin – The Globe and Mail - 24 Feb 19

The Trudeau government is considering changes to ethical procurement rules that stipulate how long a company can be banned from bidding on federal contracts, a revision of policy that one expert says could offer Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin another means of coping with the fraud and corruption charges it faces. SNC-Lavalin, the Quebec engineering giant at the centre of the Wilson-Raybould affair, faces the charges stemming from an RCMP investigation into its business dealings in Libya. If convicted, it could be banned from bidding on federal contracts for 10 years.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is proposing granting itself more flexibility in deciding how long a company is banned from bidding when convicted.

SNC-Lavalin has been seeking a negotiated settlement in which a company admits wrongdoing and pays a fine, but avoids a trial. Last September, however, the federal director of public prosecutions rejected the request and informed the company the prosecution would continue. Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office have denied putting inappropriate pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould when she was justice minister and attorney-general on the case. In the ensuing fallout, she resigned from cabinet and Gerald Butts, principal secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, stepped down. Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has launched an inquiry into the matter.

Even if SNC-Lavalin is convicted, a rewrite underway at Public Services could eliminate a one-size-fits-all punishment period for companies found guilty of offences that run afoul of the federal Integrity Regime. This is a set of rules to address how to treat companies convicted of offences such as corruption, bribery, bid-rigging and money laundering, rules that have evolved over the past decade to ensure Canada “does business only with ethical suppliers,” according to Public Services’ website. Public Services held a 33-day public consultation last fall on a proposed new “ineligibility and suspension policy” that would leave it to officials in the department to set the ban period.

These proposed new rules say the Registrar of Ineligibility and Suspension at Public Services will decide what length of suspension applies, taking into account “the seriousness of the conduct … balanced against the steps taken by the [company] to ensure that similar conduct does not recur.” Other factors to be considered include the extent to which senior management at the company were involved in the offences for which the firm was convicted; whether the company is a repeat offender; the steps the firm has taken to address the wrongdoing; and whether it has implemented remedial measures.The revised policy circulated for consultation by Ottawa included a statement saying the department expected this would take effect “in early 2019.”

A Public Services spokesman this past weekend said the department is still reviewing what it heard from Canadians. “We have consulted on amendments to the current policy, one of which would give flexibility in suspension decisions,” Charles Drouin, a spokesman for Public Services said. “We are currently analyzing feedback received during the consultation.” Public Services could not immediately answer whether this revised policy – that has yet to be approved – could be of help to SNC-Lavalin.

Timothy Cullen, an Ottawa-based lawyer at McMillan, said the revised policy could be applied to SNC-Lavalin if it is convicted on the charges it faces. “Under the new policy, whenever it takes effect … yes, it is quite possible that under the new policy they could receive lesser or no suspension,” he said, adding it’s not yet known how the department will wield this policy. Mr. Cullen said the department would also take into account the conduct of SNC-Lavalin since the charges were laid and its co-operation with authorities and other factors. SNC-Lavalin could not be reached Sunday for comment on this proposed procurement policy revision.

The Montreal firm faces one count of corruption under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and one count of fraud under the Criminal Code. It’s alleged SNC paid millions of dollars in bribes to public officials in Libya between 2001 and 2011 to secure government contracts. The engineering company says executives who were responsible for the wrongdoing have left the company, and it has reformed ethics and compliance rules. The list of companies that currently face procurement bans by Ottawa is very small – three firms – and includes no major companies.

Opposition MPs are urging the House of Commons justice committee to call Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s former chief of staff Jessica Prince to testify about a key meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s top advisers. The Prime Minister’s Office confirmed on Saturday that chief of staff Katie Telford and Mr. Butts met Dec. 18 with Ms. Prince, who was Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at the time, says it appears pressure was also exerted on her staff. “It now seems that [Ms. Prince] also has been subject to perhaps inordinate pressure by getting her to work on Jody so this may be more indication of the level of pressure on Jody,” NDP MP Murray Rankin said of Ms. Prince. Michael Wernick, the Privy Council Clerk, told the House of Commons justice committee last Thursday that the Dec. 18 meeting with Ms. Prince was one of three conversations that he predicts the former justice minister has concerns about.


All of these conversations took place after Kathleen Roussel, the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, had already informed SNC-Lavalin on Sept. 4 that she would not negotiate a settlement and would instead proceed with prosecution. Mr. Wernick confirmed in testimony last week that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was unwilling to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with SNC-Lavalin despite repeated efforts by Mr. Trudeau and other senior officials to revisit the question of the company’s pending criminal prosecution on fraud and corruption charges. He said the former justice minister and attorney-general was warned several times about the economic consequences of a criminal conviction of SNC-Lavalin. He denied, however, that she was subjected to “inappropriate pressure” to shelve the prosecution.

Ms. Prince accompanied Ms. Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs in Jan. 14 when she was demoted and lost the plum post of justice minister in a cabinet shuffle. Normally, the chief of staff remains behind when their minister is shuffled – to provide continuity. Ms. Prince, however, was replaced as chief of staff to new Justice Minister and Montreal MP David Lametti by Rachel Doran. Ms. Doran had worked in the Prime Minister’s Office as a policy adviser and was part of the brain trust of previous Ontario Liberal governments that included Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford.

Mr. Butts, one of Mr. Trudeau’s closest friends and most trusted adviser, suddenly resigned Feb. 18, while denying allegations that officials in the Prime Minister’s Office applied political pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould to settle criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould is expected to testify to the justice committee at 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday. She retained former Supreme Court of Canada justice Thomas Cromwell to advise her on what she can say without violating solicitor-client privilege.

 

[Navy_Pete]

How many employees does SNC actual have? I am sure they sub contract most everything to excavation, steel fabricators, electrical etc contractors as does ever engineering firm.

Newspapers quote 50k employees in 160 countries.  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#cite_note-CBC_20120430-2 )

They started out doing just engineering, but also do project management and some other functions. For example, they bought the reactor division from AECL and have a CANDU division that markets and builds reactors across the world.  Here at home, they are involved in everything from building management (particularly around a lot of the office buildings here in Ottawa) and delivering the in service support for the RCN minor war vessels /auxiliaries (ie MCDVs, Orcas, and all the barges, tugs and other misc ships).

They are a pretty big multinational, and already took a big hit from being barred by the World Bank from a bunch of construction projects.  There are some allegations of bribes for a Montreal hospital project, so they are doing sketchy stuff here at home as well, but there are still whole sectors with absolutely nothing to do with that portion.

Realistically, if someone else wins the next iteration of MWAV, I'm sure they'll poach a bunch of the current PMs and other staff doing the work, but someone needs to poop or get off the pot here, as there are a bunch of potential contracts that would be affected, and may need some lead time to do some extra steps to set up a competition if the incumbent is suddenly banned . PSPC doesn't consider one or two compliant bids submitted to be a 'competitive process' so may need to do additional industry engagement, or tweak the RFP for extra cost analysis requirements for 'fairness' (insert air quotes here) .

 

[YZT580]

by the information that the Globe keeps coming up with I would say that there are bigger leaks than the admiral in Ottawa who are far more damaging to the liberal cause.  Wonder why they aren't being pursued.

 

[Rifleman62]

Should have stated the number of Cdns directly employed by SNC. Companies sub contracted by SNC don't count . These companies can get contracts from other entities.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Should have stated the number of Cdns directly employed by SNC. Companies sub contracted by SNC don't count . These companies can get contracts from other entities.

Finally found it on their website;  "With 8,762 employees across Canada as of January 8, 2018—we know Canada.  " http://www.snclavalin.com/en/canada

Guessing most of those are on the higher end of the pay scale based on the type of work they do, as they sub out the lower paid stuff.  Still, if that's their employees running prime contracts, ends up touching a lot of other jobs, and transitions between primes never helps the bottom of the totem pole.

In some sectors they seem to be dominating the market, so no real guarantee if they folded the replacement wouldn't be a small Canadian contingent for a larger multinational based elsewhere.

I think most people are okay with the principle of a DPA, and application in this situation, but it's the greasy backdoor nature, the appearance of favouratism for a political donor and the constant lies that are the problem.

 

[FJAG]

The problem with the "too big to fail; too big to punish" principle is that it does not deter such players from acting improperly. Any fines etc just become a cost of doing doing business in a crooked way that effectively maximizes profits. Personally I think jailing and fining responsible executives is the way to go (what I would really like to see is their exorbitant salaries and bonuses being cut and redistributed to the smaller shareholders.)

:2c:

 

[Remius]

The PM has waived attorney client privilege.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-waives-attorney-client-privilege-in-snc-lavalin-affair-1.4311440

 

[Good2Golf]

Perhaps requiring SNC to put up a significant “good conduct” bond for each big GoC contract they are awarded, held in trust until that particular contract is fulfilled? ???